Christmas Adjournment

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If hon. Members take up to eight minutes, everyone will—[Interruption.] It is no use moaning about it. If you want to take extra and knock someone else out, that is up to yourselves. I am only trying to be helpful. In the Christmas spirit, let us all treat each other with equality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The good news is that we have had two no-shows, which will allow Members to speak for up to 10 minutes. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) must have known that already, given the length of time for which she spoke—but not to worry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Siobhain McDonagh—and Buster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Should fate ever somehow decree that I end up as a member of a council in Somerset, I shall make it my absolute priority—horses’ heads or no—to stay on the right side of the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger).

This has been a tumultuous year culturally and politically. With the assassination of an ambassador and a further apparent terrorist atrocity yesterday, it seems we are finishing on a stark but familiar low. The attack in Germany drives home to me the fact that, to coin the phrase of the moment, we have more in common with our European partners than divides us. I fear that the current stand-off over Brexit and the forthcoming negotiations will drive us further apart from our neighbours, when these are surely times when those nations committed to the cause of democracy, freedom and pluralism must stick together and find common ground, rather than hunker down in an introspective bunker, focused on the challenges of Brexit while the big global challenges and threats remain.

The main debate in the EU negotiations seems to be one of immigration versus free movement and access to the single market. I am in favour of the free movement of labour; I am just not in favour of the free movement of unemployment and the free movement of exploitation. Over a decade ago, as a trade union official, I saw construction workers being brought in from abroad and used on big construction projects; names such as Staythorpe power station or Lindsey oil refinery spring to mind. Those immigrant workers would be used by the prime and principal subcontractors to drive down wages in a sector where skilled, well-paid jobs provided a good standard of living and were negotiated nationally between the unions and employers, and where the system worked.

All of a sudden, wage rates were falling in a race to the bottom, which even good employers—the majority of employers—were forced to join to stay competitive. The difference was kept by the corporations and their bosses in the form of bigger profits, rather than being shared out among the men and women doing the work. Bogus agencies were set up in eastern Europe, advertising British jobs at below UK agreed rates of pay—again so that the money could be siphoned off from the workers and those at the top could keep a bigger slice for themselves.

It is unsurprising that so many working-class people voted to leave the EU, when that was their most visible personal experience of it, albeit it was not necessarily the EU that was at fault but the system of globalised capitalism we are seeing today. My solution would be simple: retain free movement in a qualified manner. If someone has a job, they can come and work here, but the job must be advertised in the UK and in English, and it must pay accepted UK rates. I suspect that the rest of the EU may soon find itself moving towards such a system anyway.

The Euro-referendum and, it would seem, events elsewhere, have brought into focus another new aspect of the state of politics, exemplified by the word of the year: post-truth. In the UK, there was no better example of that than the red Vote Leave bus, with its siren promise of an extra £350 million a week for the NHS—a promise it took Nigel Farage barely 12 hours to admit was false, on breakfast TV.

Members of the House who associated themselves with that promise have never apologised or faced the appropriate obloquy for their association with it. I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I sought guidance from Mr Speaker and the Clerks as to how I might criticise Members such as the Foreign Secretary for their association with the bus and the claim. I learned that the rules of the House preclude me from calling Members such as the Foreign Secretary deliberately mendacious. Were I allowed to do so, I would, indeed, suggest that these Members were deliberately and wilfully mendacious in the pursuit of short-term political gain—a practice that is known in Cheshire as being a snollygoster. Of course, the rules do preclude me from that, so I will not be making any such allegation.

Post-truth politics is dangerous because it devalues our political system, corrodes the quality of our democracy and diminishes public trust in our institutions. It has a broader effect too—a cultural effect, because as well as undermining honesty and trust and celebrating deceit, it celebrates ignorance and stupidity in saying that learning is not to be valued and has nothing to contribute. So when the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) told Faisal Islam on “Sky News” that he had “had enough of experts”, it was a breathtaking attack on progress, an attack on scientific and cultural learning, a devaluation of the intrinsic importance of the—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. You are mentioning Members. Did you give notice that you were going to mention Members in the Chamber?

[Christian Matheson]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will bear that in mind and amend my comments suitably as a result.

When Members say that they have had enough of experts, that is an attack on progress—a devaluation of the intrinsic importance of the accumulation of knowledge as a good thing that has benefited, and will continue to benefit, humanity across the ages.

I say this clearly to the House: please reject the dishonesty of post-truth politics but reject also its regressive and reactionary message that ignorance and dishonesty are somehow a good thing. Post-truth did not put a man on the moon or develop the Hubble space telescope, post-truth did not invent the internet or the worldwide web, and post-truth will not find a cure for cancer. If we in this place cannot address an argument with fact, it may be time to reassess whether our views are correct and sustainable.

As we look forward to the new year, I make a further plea to the House to reject the notion that the 52% vote to leave is somehow the will of the people. It is the will of the majority of the people and it must be respected— we must deliver the exit from the EU agreed in the referendum—but it cannot be portrayed as the will of all the people. The views of the 48% must be taken into account in how we exit the EU; they cannot be ignored or airbrushed away. I fully support and pay tribute to hon. Members on my Front Bench who are trying to bring the country together and make efforts to represent the 100%, because I fear that, in addition to the perils of post-truth politics, we face another threat—one of cataclysmic disunity. The referendum was brought about by this Government to halt long-running rifts over Europe in certain parts of the House, but those rifts have now been transferred to the whole country, and have fed narrow nationalism in certain parts of it. Narrow, petty nationalism cannot be the solution to any problem that we face in the world today.

I am certainly not imagining a nation where we all agree and everything is fine and dandy, but a basic consensus about how we do politics has been attacked, as exemplified by recent media attacks on High Court judges and their integrity. We are stronger when we stick together. I have never known our country to be so deeply and unpleasantly divided. We have heard so much about putting the “great” back into Great Britain; perhaps now, with all the external threats and challenges we face, it is time to put the “united” back into the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti). I agreed with much of what he said.

I am going to speak about three issues that have come up in community casework in my constituency. I have previously raised the issue of how hysteroscopies and uterine biopsies are conducted in the NHS. I have drawn to the attention of the House the serious pain and distress suffered by far too many women, who are not well served by the advice and support—or, frankly, the lack of support and empathy—that they receive from clinicians and the NHS.

As the House will, I know, be aware, in the hysteroscopy procedure a small camera is passed through the cervix to examine, and often take a sample from, the lining of the womb. Yes, that means cutting out a piece of the lining of the womb. The procedure is useful in the diagnosis of cancer and other womb conditions, as well as to investigate fertility issues and to perform minor operations. For most women, it is a significantly uncomfortable procedure, but for a sizeable number it can be unbearably painful, leading to significant blood loss, loss of consciousness and, in some cases, hospitalisation. Such procedures are usually carried out as outpatient appointments, and often without any kind of anaesthesia.

The NHS website helpfully says of the procedure:

“You may experience some discomfort similar to period cramps while it’s carried out, but it shouldn’t be painful.”

To say that that advice is misleading is something of an understatement. The problem is that for some women, the procedure is unacceptably painful. Hysteroscopy Action estimates that up to a quarter of UK hysteroscopy patients have reported severe pain. I know that you will agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is not acceptable to be led to presume that the worst that can happen is that, as the NHS website says, women will experience some discomfort, given that the reality is very different. All women need to be offered proper anaesthesia at the appropriate moment so that the sizeable minority who experience significant pain can be supported. To do anything else is nothing short of barbaric.

This is the third time that I have raised this matter in an Adjournment debate, so I have decided not to read out the cases that individuals have mailed to me, trusting that their stories will get action. Today, I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he will raise the matter on my behalf with the Department of Health and get a statement from the Department about pain management with hysteroscopy.

We need better systems to be put in place to ensure appropriate triage, rather than trial and error. More information about what may happen needs to be made available to patients beforehand, accompanied by the support required to ensure that women understand the risks and can make real choices about the best method of treatment for them. It is not acceptable for women to be told by a male doctor that they must have a low pain threshold when they are begging for the procedure to be stopped.

Given that this is the third time I have raised the issue and that I have received warm and comforting words from Health Ministers in the past, I fail to understand what is preventing such action. Frankly, I wonder whether it is because of money—the cost of an anaesthetic being available to women. I look forward to receiving a written response from the Department of Health. I am not an unreasonable woman, in the main—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Agreed.

[Lyn Brown]

Thank you.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In the main.

[Lyn Brown]

Indeed. Not unreasonably, I expect a response by mid-February. If I do not get one, I will seek a further debate in the House to focus attention on the issue. I cannot believe that other Members in the Chamber for this and previous debates think that what I have described is acceptable.

Secondly, a couple of months ago we had our first debate on arthritis for many years. Given that the condition affects about 10 million people—one in six of the population—one would have thought it deserved greater attention. In particular, it is important to understand the differences between the various types of arthritis and how they affect everyday life. Too often, we assume it is an issue for the elderly, not one that is really so important. In fact, one constituent wrote to me that she was very grateful for the debate, because she got an arthritic condition in her 20s. She was so exhausted by it that she was unable to continue working in the law, and she has spent many years trying to get it under control. She told me, “It’s not about having a creaky knee, but people believe that’s all it is—they simply do not understand how it can have a massive impact on somebody’s life.”

There are implications for employers, carers and the Government’s welfare to work policy. For example, rheumatoid arthritis, which occurs when the immune system targets affected joints, can be a fluctuating condition. If it is not properly controlled, it can make it so hard for a person to sustain full-time work; yet when properly understood and managed, there is no reason why an individual cannot continue their working lives, provided that there is sufficient understanding and flexibility not just to avoid and manage flare-ups, but to accommodate the necessary medical appointments. One constituent wrote to me to ask whether the House could consider a legal right to flexible working for those with fluctuating health conditions.

I recently spoke in the House about my own experience of having an immune-based arthritis and of getting it under control. I want to place on the record my thanks to the many constituents and others who got in touch with their stories and told me about their similar experiences. I am delighted to hear about the breakthroughs in medical science that will help others to live full working lives. The UK is leading the way in the development of many potential solutions. I have read about the medical research on osteoporosis being carried out in Glasgow, and I know that our European partners are also working in this area. I have read that clinical trials are taking place in the Netherlands to reverse the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis through using an electronic implant attached to a nerve. My concern is that some of the critical research collaborations in this area may be threatened by our departure from the European Union. I know that the House discussed these issues yesterday, but I would again be very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House if he discussed this with whomever he needs to discuss it with and confirmed that specific areas of research on arthritis will be protected.

Finally, I would like to mention one of the more troubling and tragic cases I have received at my constituency surgery in recent months. It concerns a British national, Ali Asghar Khan, the husband of a constituent. He was killed in Pakistan on a trip to visit family. He had been celebrating Eid and was returning home with two friends when their vehicle was ambushed on a mountainous road. A gunman opened fire and both Mr Khan and the driver of the vehicle were killed instantly. The third passenger, who was sat in the back of the car, managed to escape by jumping into the ravine and was subsequently able to raise the alarm.

My understanding is that Mr Khan was not the intended target of the attack, but that is of course little consolation to his widow and family. My constituents have struggled to ensure that his death is fully investigated and the perpetrators brought to account. Sadly, they are struggling to the point of being asked for money by the local investigating police force to transport files and take witness statements.

I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), about the case, and his response was really quite helpful. My purpose in raising the case today is to draw attention to the plight of the family of my late constituent and get a greater understanding of how the Government can meet the safety concerns of British nationals in Pakistan and what assistance is afforded to them while visiting the country. When he winds up, perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will say whether he will consider pushing for some parliamentary time to discuss the subject more widely.

I thank the House for the opportunity to raise these issues today. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, all colleagues and all the amazing staff of this House, who are so very good with us every single day, the very best for Christmas and the new year.